Movie Review: August In The Empire State

By Mike Everleth ⋅ October 7, 2006

In this day and age when it seems that politics are becoming more and more divisive, it’s nice to see a documentary that at least tries to provide a balanced perspective between “conservative” and “liberal.”

August In The Empire State, directed by Gabriel Rhodes and Keefe Murren, follows two stories taking place during the 2004 Republican National Convention in NYC. On one side is Cheri Honkala, the activist leader of the Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign, who leads a peaceful march through New York City to raise awareness of the plight of the poor in America. On the other side is Paul Rodriguez, not the comedian, but a young Latino businessman looking to break into politics with a nascent run for Congress.

There’s also a minor third story concerning an independent journalist, Michelle Goldberg, covering the event, but the real focus here is on Honkala and Rodriguez, who both have a difficult road to travel. Honkala we see is harassed constantly by the police even when her group consists of maybe half a dozen people walking peacefully across New Jersey to get to New York where she is planning a major rally despite not having the proper permits. Meanwhile, Rodriguez is looking for support from a mostly Democratic constituency even though he is a die-hard Republican.

While I tend to suspect that Rhodes and Murren’s sympathies lie more towards Honkala’s politics since the activist seems to be featured more prominently in the final film than Rodriguez, it’s very admirable that the directors kept the film from being a leftist polemic. Both subjects are presented rather matter of factly and are left to sink or swim on the basis of their own words and actions. Neither is presented in a positive or negative light. I have my own political biases, of course, and have my opinions on whether either subject appears sympathetic or not, but I don’t want to get into that discussion in this review.

Instead, I want to discuss what I found the most maddening, not about the film, but about both subjects. While Honkala and Rodriguez offer up a lot of ideas regarding their political opinions, neither of them discuss hard and fast political goals. That’s a little bit more troubling for Rodriguez who is running for political office, but he doesn’t seem to want to tell the people he wants to vote for him what actual types of policies he would push for once he wins a Congressional seat. Rodriguez talks a good deal about the benefits of promoting self-sufficiency and demolishing a culture of Welfare dependence, both of which are good things, but what are the exact policies he would support to make those things happen? It’s one thing to tell his people they need to be financially self-sufficient, but if he doesn’t give his community the tools for that to happen, then his words are useless.

On the other side, while Honkala is hoping to bring awareness to the plight of the poor in America, at the end of the film I really don’t know what she actually wants. If she’s holding this march to protest Bush and the Republican party, what specific policies is she objecting against? She’s an excellent, passionate, charismatic speaker and leader, so it’s easy why should find so many people to follow her in the march, so I just wish I knew more what she was all about.

However, a political convention isn’t really about enacting specific policies, it’s about gaining attention, a goal which Honkala and Rodriguez at least both accomplish. Honkala’s group actually does a lot of work fighting for the poor, which you can read about and perhaps get involved with at the Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign website. I also skimmed through Rodriguez’s campaign website [link now defunct] where I found he was still kind of vague on his ideas. I couldn’t find anything about what he’s up to now, which is something I’m kind of curious about.

Underground Film Feedback (2 comments)

It’s very interesting to read this, particularly five years after the documentary was filmed. You make some very valid points about how both sides are presented, specifically the lack policy solutions proposed for our respective beliefs. Please just keep in mind that I neither controlled nor dictated how I was portrayed or what the focus of my appearance in the film would be. All I asked of Gabriel, Keefe and Jennie is that I be portrayed fairly and honestly. And I think that they did a pretty good job at that.

Were there some things that could have been added to the film? Sure, but ultimately, I think that the filmakers wanted to focus on exposing the intellectual and philosophical debate more than on proposing specific policy solutions. They also wanted to highlight the apparent contradiction between the white, midwestern, homeless woman and the Hispanic, white collar conservative. We seem to break the usual stereotypes, although the latter is not as rare as you may think.

They took a lot of film, but there are only so many directions in which you can take something in an hour before the audience loses focus. Could they have spent more time on me and shown what “made me tic?” Or shown footage from the various political meetings where I spoke and provided specifics? Perhaps. At the end of the day, a documentary that was originally focused on four individuals was narrowed down to principally Cheri and me. So I can’t complain either.

I’m glad that you at least enjoyed the film and found value in it. I also hope that it allowed you to see people from my side of the political spectrum a bit more openly, and also realize that Hispanics don’t all necessarily believe in the same policies, regardless of their socioeconomic background.

Funny to read this again, too, after not having seen the film in a few years. I find it interesting that I did take issue with the lack of policy discussion as being a flaw about you and Cheri and not the way the film might have been edited. I’m not sure I’d do that now.

Also, while I admit in the review I tend to lean liberal, I do come from a conservative family, so I’m very open to “that side” of the political spectrum.

If you come back to see if I’ve responded, please leave a note telling us if you’re still involved in politics.